On 20 Nov 2012, at 16:35, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> And what is it? That I see both Washington and Moscow. No, you
would not go that far (and that would contradict what you have
already agree on).
Bruno Marchal certainly sees Washington AND Bruno Marchal certainly
sees Moscow, but nothing at all is known about what "I" sees because
Bruno Marchal can not or will not say who or what "I"
No, you are wrong. After pushing the button, and having self-localized
themselves, both the W-man and the M-man know perfectly well who they
are, and the H-man, as he assumes comp, know that in advance.
You attempt to hide the indeterminacy into an identity problem will
not work because the 1/3 distinction, which you always seem to forget,
does manage the disambiguation very well.
is without inserting even more ambiguity and pronouns. And John
Clark does not believe that "I" is used just because its shorter and
sounds smoother than saying "Bruno Marchal"; John Clark believes
that when it comes to selling bad ideas to the unsophisticated,
ambiguity is your friend.
>?
!
> ?
!
> ?
!
> You push on a button, and, as a comp is assumed, you know that
when you will open your eyes WHOEVER you will be by the comp
assumption, you will see only only once city, and you are asked to
evaluate which one.
That's 7 yous in just 43 words, over 16%.
> If "W" and "M" represent the two possible subjective outcomes,
you, in Helsinki, know in advance that [...]
... in the future "you in Helsinki" will be experiencing nothing at
all because nobody will be experiencing Helsinki anymore after that
button is pushed; however for the you in Washington and the you in
Moscow it's a different matter entirely.
The protocol given makes this clear. There are no future you in
Helsinki, as the body in Helsinki is destroyed.
>> tell me who "you" is from the point of view of the reader of the
thought experiment without using more ambiguous pronouns to explain
that ambiguous pronoun.
> From the point of view of the reader, you can be attached to all
the bodies involved. So you are the Helsinki man in Helsinki, and
then you are the W-man AND the M-man, as with comp we can attribute
consciousness and "Clark's identity" to both copies.
Exactly, "you" can mean anything
Precisely: you are all the copies, in the 3-views on the 1-view. But
you are only one person, in all situation, from the 1-view on the 1-
view. It is necessarily like that with comp, and it fits with the
interview on each individuals before and after the pushing.
or everything or nothing at all,
Then you would not necessarily survived through a brain digital
replacement, and comp is violated.
thus when Bruno Marchal asks the question "what will "you" feel when
this or that happens?" it has no answer,
Of course it has an answer. You know that you will survive in one
city. You just don't know which one. This is clearly confirmed by the
copies.
or rather any answer is equally good (or bad), which makes the
entire thought experiment utterly useless. The purpose of the
exercise is to get a clearer understanding of the nature of identity,
Specifically NOT.
yet that damn pronoun is thrown around with abandon from the very
start as if it's already perfectly understood, and if it is then
there is no need for the thought experiment in the first place.
Only because you fail to see the difference between the subjective
view (1p), and the locally objective view (3p).
Bruno Marchal knows these problems as well as John Clark does, and
yet Bruno Marchal continues to use pronouns at every opportunity and
John Clark believes that the only reason Bruno Marchal does this is
because ambiguous words offer a good hiding place from logic. Nobody
can prove something wrong if it's not known what was said.
> That is the intellectual 3p view on the 1-views.
John Clark is just waiting for a non-ambiguous answer to the
question "who is "you?"
It is 100% irrelevant. I can make you amnesic of your identity, then,
if you hypocampus still work, you will get the same indeterminacy on
the 1p experience when doing the WM-duplication.
It is amazing because I have never seen people having a problem with
step 3, except those scientist who believe that the whole
consciousness or mind-body issue is bs at the start, or strict
dogmatic (and old) copenhagians who fear even just the shadow of
Everett.
Tell me if you agree with this. suppose that in the WM-duplication you
are told that you will have a cup of coffee after the reconstitution
is made, in W and in M. Do you agree that you can be sure that "you"
will live a drinking coffee experience with certainty? Do you agree
that P(drinking coffee) = 1?
If yes, I will proceed from that.
and John Clark is getting impatient at Bruno Marchal when Bruno
Marchal just pees on the question because the point of view
requested is obviously the point of view of the reader of the
thought experiment.
It is assumed that the reader has the cognitive ability to put himself
at the place of the copies, given that the question bears on the
future 1-view. (technically that is what Löbian machine can already do
enough to get the point).
If no answer to the question comes to mind that's OK, just re-
express the thing without using pronouns and to hell if it sound
choppy, this is supposed to be about philosophy not literary elegance.
No need of this, as the 1-you and 3-you are well defined in a 3p sense.
But very easy to do if you insist. A person is in Helsinki and will be
WM-duplicated. "W" represents "the first person experience of seeing W
+ memory of having been in H" and "M" represents "the first person
experience of seeing M + memory of having been in H".
By comp such experience will occur, and no first person experience of
seeing simultaneously W and M will ever occur . How can the person
evaluate P(W) and P(M)?
> the question is about what you will feel, and in that case, it is
pretty obvious that WHOEVER you can be after pushing on the button,
in all circumstances, you will feel to be in only one city, and you
have to evaluate the chance that it is W, OR M.
As John Clark said before, Bruno Marchal simply can not talk about
this without using pronouns because ambiguous words offer a good
hiding place from logic.
Then read AUDA which shows how to handle those pronouns. But you would
be the only non logician who would find that easier than UDA.
> It is the use of "1" and "3" which prevents any ambiguity to make
the reasoning invalid.
Just dump the damn pronouns!
Once you take the 1/3 distinction into account the pronouns are not
ambiguous at.
You = the H-man, before the pushing.
3-you = the W-man and the M-man, after duplication.
1-you = the W-man only, from the W-man 1p view, or/and the M-man only
from the M-man 1p view. It is a "or" from the 1p view on the 1p views,
and an "and" if we ask for the 3p view on the 1-views.
The question concerns a prediction of future 1p experience, from the
1p-view, in a case of 3p-self-duplication.
I have still no clue at all why you are still stuck on this not so
hard step.
You fail to make clear what is unclear for you.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
